| Philosophy of Truth |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The search for truth is endless, totally time-consuming, and
in most cases hopeless. Writing this in 1989, in the era of
knowledge explosion, with computer databanks filled with facts,
dozens of top quality daily newspapers, weekly news magazines,
monthly magazines of analysis, cable television channels devoted
to live coverage, the scholar of any subject learns that he knows
less and less about more and more.
Granted, over broad expanses of time, like decades and
centuries, truth begins to emerge. Since 1600 we no longer
believe that the earth is flat, nor that it is supported on the
backs of elephants.
But in the day-to-day, year-to-year happenings that over our
lives, the details are observed or non-existent, too often on
purpose by the personal biases of our reporters/writers and/or
those they work for in the media and publishing world.
This can be demonstrated to one's own satisfaction by a
simple experiment. Personally attend a reasonably important
public affair, and then document the radio, television,
Associated Press, United Press International, Reuter's, New York
Times, Christian Science Monitor, Wall Street Journal, USA Today,
Newsweek, Time, U.S. News, etc. coverage. Your first impression
will be that you and the reporters attended two entirely
different functions. Upon analysis, you will find that each has
colored their reportage to reflect their editorial/publisher's
ideology and interest. Inconvenient facts are omitted altogether
from each account, and yet even the sum of all is wanting.
A simple example of this is in the New York Times reportage
of Yasir Arafat's remarks in Riyadh on New Year's Day, 1989.
January 19th--19 days later--they reported three versions of what
he is supposed to have said; from Kuwait, from the U.S. State
Department, and from Arafat.
The first report published in the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Anba
Jan. 3rd, "paraphrased" what he said as follows:
"Nobody can stop the uprising, and any Palestinian
leader who calls for stopping it will expose himself to
our people's bullets."
The second report, made by Arafat Jan. 17th in Helsinki, and
quoted by AP is :
"I said if I tried to stop the intifada, the small boy
who is standing beside me would shoot me."
Lastly, the third report, from the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh
purportedly based on a tape recording of his speech--but only
received by them from an unreported source "in the last few
days," i.e. 16 days after he spole, states that he said:
"Whoever thinks of stopping the intifada before it
achieves its goals, I will give him 10 bullets in the
chest."
And so it will go on for years, with nobody certain of what
he actually did say.
Words in the English language undergo changing definitions
as the years go by, and are often defined in the best
dictionaries in a self-serving manner, or to neglect contemporary
standards.
Regarding journalism, which is the medium through which we
derive our current facts, the 1949 Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary, says "The business of managing, editing, or writing
for journals."
By 1981, journalism in the same dictionary has evolved to
"the collection and editing of material of current interest for
presentation through news media."
No mention is made of "the business of managing," which we
are saying is the true state of affairs of journalism today.
As for histories, the West applauds "revisionism" for Soviet
Russia, Japan and Germany as they revise their version of history
to approximate the West's account of their history, but the West
continues with its orthodoxy, such as was canonized Columbia
University historians in 1915, and many major questions and
subjects remaqin clouded or unexplained.
What ws the real reason for World War I? Why did the U.S.
enter World War I?
In World War II, if Germany and Russia both invaded Poland,
why did England and France only declare war on Germany?
The purpose of this book is not to advance pet theories or
pat answers. It is on effort to accurately describe one person's
observation and evaluations of the world and its affairs as it
existed during his lifetime.
To the end that contemporary readers may benefit and help
mankind's advance towards a better, peaceful and more just
civilization.
in most cases hopeless. Writing this in 1989, in the era of
knowledge explosion, with computer databanks filled with facts,
dozens of top quality daily newspapers, weekly news magazines,
monthly magazines of analysis, cable television channels devoted
to live coverage, the scholar of any subject learns that he knows
less and less about more and more.
Granted, over broad expanses of time, like decades and
centuries, truth begins to emerge. Since 1600 we no longer
believe that the earth is flat, nor that it is supported on the
backs of elephants.
But in the day-to-day, year-to-year happenings that over our
lives, the details are observed or non-existent, too often on
purpose by the personal biases of our reporters/writers and/or
those they work for in the media and publishing world.
This can be demonstrated to one's own satisfaction by a
simple experiment. Personally attend a reasonably important
public affair, and then document the radio, television,
Associated Press, United Press International, Reuter's, New York
Times, Christian Science Monitor, Wall Street Journal, USA Today,
Newsweek, Time, U.S. News, etc. coverage. Your first impression
will be that you and the reporters attended two entirely
different functions. Upon analysis, you will find that each has
colored their reportage to reflect their editorial/publisher's
ideology and interest. Inconvenient facts are omitted altogether
from each account, and yet even the sum of all is wanting.
A simple example of this is in the New York Times reportage
of Yasir Arafat's remarks in Riyadh on New Year's Day, 1989.
January 19th--19 days later--they reported three versions of what
he is supposed to have said; from Kuwait, from the U.S. State
Department, and from Arafat.
The first report published in the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Anba
Jan. 3rd, "paraphrased" what he said as follows:
"Nobody can stop the uprising, and any Palestinian
leader who calls for stopping it will expose himself to
our people's bullets."
The second report, made by Arafat Jan. 17th in Helsinki, and
quoted by AP is :
"I said if I tried to stop the intifada, the small boy
who is standing beside me would shoot me."
Lastly, the third report, from the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh
purportedly based on a tape recording of his speech--but only
received by them from an unreported source "in the last few
days," i.e. 16 days after he spole, states that he said:
"Whoever thinks of stopping the intifada before it
achieves its goals, I will give him 10 bullets in the
chest."
And so it will go on for years, with nobody certain of what
he actually did say.
Words in the English language undergo changing definitions
as the years go by, and are often defined in the best
dictionaries in a self-serving manner, or to neglect contemporary
standards.
Regarding journalism, which is the medium through which we
derive our current facts, the 1949 Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary, says "The business of managing, editing, or writing
for journals."
By 1981, journalism in the same dictionary has evolved to
"the collection and editing of material of current interest for
presentation through news media."
No mention is made of "the business of managing," which we
are saying is the true state of affairs of journalism today.
As for histories, the West applauds "revisionism" for Soviet
Russia, Japan and Germany as they revise their version of history
to approximate the West's account of their history, but the West
continues with its orthodoxy, such as was canonized Columbia
University historians in 1915, and many major questions and
subjects remaqin clouded or unexplained.
What ws the real reason for World War I? Why did the U.S.
enter World War I?
In World War II, if Germany and Russia both invaded Poland,
why did England and France only declare war on Germany?
The purpose of this book is not to advance pet theories or
pat answers. It is on effort to accurately describe one person's
observation and evaluations of the world and its affairs as it
existed during his lifetime.
To the end that contemporary readers may benefit and help
mankind's advance towards a better, peaceful and more just
civilization.